I'm sorry foxy: all you are doing is proving the point that gays can't have kids.

That's why gay marriage was never an institution.

AJ Philips,

I’ve compiled a list of words you don’t understand just from your last post:

equality
similar
overlap
absolute
demonstrated
irrelevant
equivocation
somewhat
entirely
distinct

E&OE

But you got “eligibility” correct this time so that’s something .
Still, 1/11 is an F.

If we can’t agree on the meanings of words, there’s little prospect that sentences constructed with those words will have the same meaning to both parties.

Therefor, any progress when faced with such overwhelming comprehension issues is pointless.

Some may argue family history isn't important to keep. If that logic was taken, I could argue, having children is not important. The following shows what some people are doing in regards to maintaining family history in terms of elderly residents:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/modbury-palliative-patients-biography-program/8785464

The link: "It's an opportunity for them (the people) to leave behind some memories for their families, it also gives them a chance to reflect on their lives and where they were and where they're at."

Some other stories show very different situations. These are still not being addressed at present by some who simply do not want to face up a wider scope of issues using lines like:

<<Homosexual people can have kids>>

The case of ABC journalist Sarah Dingle though shows why this is irresponsible.

Conceived in 1982 at the fertility clinic at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, Ms Dingle at 27, was advised by her mother that she was conceived using donor sperm. This shocked the ABC journalist, who adored her father and was upset by his premature death.

Sarah Dingle's hospital records were altered, impeding her search for her donor father.

Sarah would wake up in the morning or come home in the evening and look at my face in the mirror and literally did not recognise her own face.

Ms Dingle went in search of her biological heritage. What she found out came as a shock to her mother, Siew Dingle. Without Mrs Dingle's consent, someone had cut out the donor's code from the section of her record documenting Sarah's conception and then attached the altered paperwork to a sheet of white paper, making the damage less evident.

Sarah couldn't believe that a public hospital which was creating human life was actually going back and destroying the records of what they'd done.

The hospital agreed Ms Dingle's case was a serious problem.

This issue clearly must be addressed as children are feeling cut out and violated at present.

Dear Cupric,

«You are hardly talking about lesbians and gays then!»

Half-correct: I am talking about a lesbian and a homosexual (non-gay) man.
They have done it twice, using the natural method, with the stimulating help of their regular same-sex partners (I didn't ask for the raw details, whether they were also in the same bed or just standing/sitting besides it).

---

Dear Foxy,

«Gays have children. Through a variety of means.»

Also Liberals, Communists, Greens, Laborites, Republicans, Democrats, etc. etc.: having children has little to do with political persuasion.

«Whether through adoption, from previous marriages, through surrogacy, or through IVF.

Yes, but why omit the most obvious method of all - the natural one!?

Dustin,

You feel the ‘US law’ line was wearing a bit thin there, did you? Yeah, I don’t blame you. Not sure how far this next shtick of yours is going to get you, though.

<<I’ve compiled a list of words you don’t understand just from your last post:>>

Just pick out some words and claim that I don’t understand them. Who needs evidence when you can make all up, eh?

<<If we can’t agree on the meanings of words, there’s little prospect that sentences constructed with those words will have the same meaning to both parties.>>

And with that, he slinks off again.

I guess we’re just never going to find out how the concept of equality is supposedly absolute, despite the possibility of its existence within groups. Or, more importantly, why gay people should not be eligible to marry each other.

It’s an astonishing co-incidence, don’t you think, that you always seem to suddenly realise discussion between us is useless at the very same time that you exhaust all avenues for ducking and weaving?

Bye bye, Dustin.

--

NathanJ,

I don’t think anyone’s argued that knowledge of one’s family history isn’t important, just that it needs to be considered in the grand scheme of things, if one is going to present it as an argument against same-sex marriage.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The "natural way" is not the only option in
today's modern world. And many heterosexual couples
are not able to
have children the "natural way."
So that argument no longer applies.

Dear CE,

Times change - get used to it.